Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from. It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?

Thursday, May 05, 2011

Dershowitz on the Obama bungling of Bin Laden's body.

Yes we need to see it.

by StFerdIII

Too bad Dershowitz votes un-Democratic, the party of little debate, no free-speech, censorship and media manipulation [and inbreeding]. He is a brilliant writer and his 2007 book on why Israel will and must survive is simply one of the best in the field on the tiny state surrounded by 350 million Arabs and Muslims [all 'moderates' of course, including the 'freedom fighters' Hamas, Hizbollah, Palestinian Jihad etc.]. He seems too clear-headed and intelligent to be a part of either Republicrat apparatus. Dershowitz is a lawyer and he questions why the great man, the O-Zeus, the most important deity in history, is so dumb as to dispose of the evidence and to defer to Muslim 'sensitivity'. Perhaps the Obama means Muslim irrationality, hatred, rage, infantilist emotionalism, and the deranged outbreak of violence in support of a mass-murdering freak like Binny Boy? Where are the 'moderate' Muslims anyways? If all Muslims are moderate why is the O-Zeus so terrified of showing pictures of the mangled body of the neo-Saladdin Jihadist fascist? Or maybe Binny was dead a long time ago. Or maybe the new Zeus and friends are cowards and incompetents. Mr Dershowitz:

The president's decision to withhold photographs of the dead Osama bin Laden is only the last in a series of terrible mistakes in the handling of his body. Although there should be no doubt that bin Laden is actually dead, there are grave doubts as to the circumstances surrounding his death. Was he shot in cold blood? Was he shot in the back or in the front? Were his hands raised in surrender? Was he actively resisting?

Many of these doubts could have been resolved if bin Laden's body had been subjected to the usual investigatory techniques routinely employed in homicide cases. His body should have been subjected to an autopsy, to forensic testing by an experienced medical examiner, to extensive photographing of entrance and exit wounds, to paraffin testing for gun-powder residue, and to other such forensic examination.

Burying his body at sea constituted the willful destruction of relevant evidence, which naturally gives rise to suspicions that there was something to hide. I fully credit the administration's explanation that the reason for the hasty burial at sea was the desire not to offend religious Muslims and not to create a shrine to a dead mass murderer. But many reasonable people around the world will wonder whether the decision may also have been based on a desire to suppress the whole truth.

In my nearly half-century of representing defendants charged with homicide, I have come to know that the best evidence of how a person died comes from the body of the deceased. Dead bodies often talk more loudly, clearly and unambiguously than live witnesses. Bin Laden's body should have been preserved as long as necessary to gather all relevant evidence, notwithstanding the requirements of Shariah Law.

When a Muslim or a Jew is the victim of a homicide in the United States, religious considerations do not trump civil requirements. Their bodies are generally sent to the medical examiner for thorough examination. Notwithstanding religious prohibitions, autopsies are performed and organs removed for testing. No special exception should have been made for bin Laden's body.

The president's decision to suppress the remaining photographic evidence is disturbing on many levels. First, it is wrong on its merits. The public is used to seeing visual portrayals of dead bodies on television and in movies. Anyone who has served as a juror or a courtroom observer in a homicide case has seen bodies riddled with bullets or afflicted with stab wounds. We are mature enough to endure viewing such visual evidence if we choose to. Nor is there any real risk that these photographs will inflame Muslim or Arab sensibilities any more than the photographs of Saddam Hussein did.

In a democracy, doubts must always be resolved in favor of disclosure, particularly in a matter of such great public interest and controversy. Surely Congress has at least equal authority to decide what to do with the photographs. Moreover, the press may have the right to obtain and publish these highly relevant items of evidence as part of its duty to inform the public. Some media will surely challenge the president's decision—and if they do I hope they win.

The great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis taught us nearly a century ago that "sunlight is the best disinfectant." The remaining evidence of how bin Laden was killed—the photographs and the results of any forensic tests that may have been hastily performed—should be exposed to the sunlight of publication.

Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest book is "Trials of Zion" (Grand Central Publishing, 2010).

Something to hide alright. Insane Hussein's capture, interrogation and hanging were filmed. But not Binny Laden's as he made his way to greet the toothless virgins in his Muslim-only paradise. Only three possibilities emerge; the first is that Bin Saladin was dead a long time ago. The second is that he indeed was killed last Sunday but the US administration has something to hide which the body would reveal. The third is that this administration is entirely incompetent and did not understand why an autopsy is both necessary and fulfilling. Muslim 'sensitivities' notwithstanding. When was the last time that the Muslims were 'sensitive' about the Infidel?